CHAPTER XIII.

THE RENAISSANCE IN THE FIELD OF LITERATURE. —BEMBO AND SADOLETO —VIDA AND SANNAZARO.

 

A PECULIAR fascination is connected with the very name of Medici. Whenever literature and art are mentioned, it comes at once before us as the representative symbol of the world of culture. When Cardinal Giovanni de' Medici was raised to the See of Peter, this opinion was already so generally prevalent, that his election was hailed by the whole educated world with the greatest rejoicing. The son of Lorenzo the Magnificent would restore peace to the world, and at the same time introduce a golden age for scholars, poets, and artists. Far and wide the conviction was entertained that the pupil of Poliziano, who, as Cardinal, had shown, even under grave difficulties, his lively interest in knowledge and art, would, now that he was master of the means of the Papacy, put into practice the brilliant aims and traditions of his family.

When he took solemn possession of the Lateran, the city was covered with inscriptions which proclaimed the dawn of the age of Pallas Athene. The very ruggedness of Julius II, and the asperity of his rule, made men look for a reaction in the pontificate of his successor, and men of education confidently expected that to the stormy pontificate of the founder of the States of the Church there would succeed an age of peace, in which the highly-cultivated Medici Pope would do homage to the Muses alone. Desire gave birth to the conviction that the peace-loving Medici would follow the warlike Rovere like Numa after Romulus.

Aldus Manutius, the indefatigable and learned publisher of Greek and Latin classics, reminded the Pope, in his first edition of Plato, how science had been promoted by Nicholas V and Lorenzo the Magnificent. It behoved the exalted successor of the one, and son of the other, to complete what a premature death had prevented his predecessors from accomplishing.

The first acts of the new Pontificate— in which Leo X declared that he had loved the fine arts from his earliest years, and had grown up among books and wished to attract to Rome as many distinguished men as possible—were calculated to satisfy the exaggerated expectations which had been formed. The appointment of the celebrated Latinists Bembo and Sadoleto to be the Pope’s private secretaries, and the summoning to Rome of the great Greek scholar Giano Lascaris, the foundation of a College for the study of Greek, and, finally, the reorganization of the Roman University, filled the whole literary world with a joyous excitement. From all sides, poets, literary and learned men, gathered round the Pope, who, with an unparalleled generosity, showered on them his gifts and tokens of favour. The laudatory poem of Angelo Colocci was rewarded with four hundred ducats, and another by Tebaldeo with five hundred; poets also of no importance were likewise liberally rewarded. All these acts were blazoned far and wide in letters and poems; Leo’s generosity was described as unparalleled and incredible; past ages had never known anything like it, and remotest posterity would speak of it.  “At last,” said an epigram affixed to Pasquino, clad as Apollo, “at last I am recalled from banishment; for Leo reigns, who will not leave poets unrecompensed”.  Instances, both true and untrue, of the Pope’s liberality were circulated, and a kind of legendary lore about his patronage of literature grew up. To this belongs the story of the purple velvet purses filled with packets of gold of different sizes, into which the fortunate successor of the rugged Julius plunged his hand blindly, to give to the men of letters who drew near to him. The fact of the case was that Serapica, the confidential treasurer of the Pope, kept a rigid account of all his lord’s expenditure.

Rome became now more than ever the centre of the literary world. “On all sides”, writes Cardinal Riario, who built the Cancelleria, in a letter to Erasmus in July, 1515, “literary men flock to the Eternal City as to their mother country, foster-mother and patron”. Nowhere was intellect so encouraged as in Rome ; and in no other place were there so many openings to be found for talent as in the numerous offices of the Curia, and in the brilliant households of Cardinals and rich bankers. For it was not only in the immediate entourage of the Pope, but also in that of the Cardinals and other great personages of Roman society, that the composers of elegant letters, polite addresses, devices, mottoes, festal programmes and verses, found advancement. This connection of men of letters with great houses, though it dates back to former Pontificates, received a new development under Leo X.

In surveying the throng of authors who frequented the Rome of Leo X, we are surprised at the unusual proportion among them of poets. Many of these had come to the Eternal City in the time of Julius II, and had in this, as in other ways, paved the way for the influence of the Medici; for under Leo X the number of poets in Rome was almost beyond calculation.

The admirers of antiquity had a decided predilection for the new Latin poetry; and however much a servile imitation of the ancients might prevail in this, there nevertheless came into existence some original creations. Every kind of poetry—epic, mythological, bucolic and didactic, as well as lyrics and epigrams—was cultivated. The standard of the ancients was most closely approached in the latter. Next to classical themes, the favourite subjects were drawn from sacred history and contemporary events. The occurrences, great and small, which took place in the reign of Leo X, such as his election, the taking possession of the Lateran, the conferring of the rights of citizenship on the Pope’s nephews, the embassy and gifts of the King of Portugal, the arrival of manuscripts, deaths in the Sacred College, the Council of the Lateran and the proposed war against the Turks, were frequently treated by the poets, even such matters as the Pope’s hunting expeditions not being overlooked. The artists also and their works of art, patronized by Leo, furnished subjects for many verses to the indefatigable poets. So also did any important ecclesiastical function, and even the visits of the Pope to various churches. No prince mentioned in history has had the events of his life recorded and extolled to the same extent as Leo X. Without weighing the merits or demerits of these poets, Leo dispensed his favours indiscriminately, drawing no line between men of profound learning and real poets, and skilful improvisatori, poetasters, and jesters of the most ordinary kind. The more he gave the more greedy were the poets; even if the good-natured Pope invited them collectively to his table, or asked them to recite their compositions on certain special occasions, or even gave them free access to his presence at noon, they were not satisfied. The “unabashed swarm of poets” pursued Leo everywhere; even in his bedchamber he was not safe from these tormenters whom he had himself called into existence. Naturally the Pope was unable to satisfy everyone, and as he fell deeper and deeper into financial difficulties, the voices which clamoured for favours sounded louder and louder. To these discontented spirits belonged that poet who proclaimed that the ancients were fortunate, because they were provided with great patrons. If it is, as a rule, a mistake to give full credence to authors with a grievance, we must certainly refuse to accept this last implied accusation as unjust, “for rarely have poetical talents basked in a brighter sun than they did in the time of Leo X.”

Besides the bestowal of gifts in money, the Pope rewarded literary men with positions in the Curia, and benefices, as well as other favours, such as patents of nobility, the rank of count and other titles of honour. He also repeatedly helped them by giving them letters of recommendation to princes and others in high spiritual or secular positions.

After the Vatican the principal place of meeting of literati and poets was the villa of the wealthy Angelo Colocci, built on the ruins of Sallust’s villa, and full of rare manuscripts, books, antiquities, and inscriptions. Colocci, who was at the head of the Roman Academy, had been appointed by Leo X to be his secretary, and had been generously remunerated by him for his poems ; later he received the reversion of the bishopric of Nocera.

Another favourite meeting-place of the Roman poets was the vineyard near Trajan’s Forum, belonging to the old receiver of petitions, Johann Goritz. This native of Luxemburg, who was, however, quite italianized, was extolled by Erasmus as “a man of pure heart”. Every year, on the Feast of St. Anne, he gave a feast to his literary friends, who expressed their gratitude in verses written in his honour, which were presented to him either at his vine yard or at the Chapel in S. Agostino, founded by him, which has been made famous by Sansovino's group of the Divine Infant with His Mother and St. Anne. In the collection of these poems, which Blosio Palladio, so celebrated for the elegance of his verses, gathered together and published in the first poetical annual, which appeared in 1524, we meet with the works of celebrated men such as Bembo, Castig­lione, Vida, and Flaminio, interspersed with the productions of men quite unknown to fame. We see this still more in the collection of Roman poets made by the physician Francesco Arsilli, and appended to the above collection. If to these we add the statements of Giovio, Giraldi, and Pierio Valeriano, we have a more or less perfect picture of the poetical circle of Leo X.

Undoubtedly the first place as writers, both of prose and poetry, must be given to Bembo and Sadoleto. By his appointment of these two representatives of true, pure, Ciceronian style to be his secretaries and domestic prelates, Leo proclaimed his determination that the writings issued from his chancery should be distinguished for the elegance of their Latinity. Bembo and Sadoleto were intimate friends. Both had previously enjoyed the favour of Julius II and now they together obtained a position near his successor as distinguished as it was important and responsible. The choice of these two celebrated Latinists is therefore to the credit of Leo, being, as they were, such a marked contrast to the others who represented the intellectual life of the time.

Bembo has been declared by many to have been a pagan. This judgment is most certainly unjust, though it is not to be denied that the intellectual Venetian, so full of the love of life, belonged avowedly to that portion of the humanist school the representatives of which lived in a state of moral depravity and undisguised devotion to the ancient world, troubling themselves but little with the precepts of Christianity. However lax Bembo’s conduct may have been, it does not follow that he held infidel opinions; better feelings were latent within him, which came to light later in his life. Nor must it be forgotten that at this time Bembo was only in minor orders ; he received sacred orders only in 1539, when he was nominated Cardinal.

Although Bembo was well paid as Papal secretary, he, like many others, was very eager to obtain benefices, the incomes of which would enable him to lead a brilliant and luxurious life. Some of his wealth was applied to nobler objects. He was a zealous collector of manuscripts, books, and works of art, both ancient and modern: among these last were the portraits by Raphael of Navagero, Beazzano, and of Bembo himself, besides paintings by Memlinc, Mantegna, Bellini, and Sebastiano del Piombo. His strong affection for the antique was manifested by many indecent poems written in his youth, and also by a few letters written from Rome to his friend Bibbiena, in which he asks him to procure for him a statue of Venus, to be placed in his study alongside those of Jupiter and Mercury, the father and brother of the foam-born goddess.

Leo X had shown his favour to Bembo as early as October, 1513, by appointing him Notary of the Apostolic See and “S. Pal. et aulae Lateran. Comes”; on the 1st of January, 1515, he gave him the name and arms of the Medici, and on several occasions confided diplomatic missions to him. But the chief task which was confided to this perfect stylist was that of composing the Papal letters. If we look at the private correspondence carried on by Bembo with nearly all the celebrities of the time, both men and women, literati, artists, poets, statesmen, and ecclesiastics, we are astonished by his vast connection, as well as by the many-sided interests and power of work of this Venetian patrician. The many letters which he composed by command of the Pope relate partly to political and partly to ecclesiastical affairs, as well as to matters of lesser importance and often of quite insignificant account. The elegant stylist knew how to handle each subject, however different, with a classical, and often cold and artistic, elegance. Many of the letters composed by him as Leo’s secretary are still unprinted, and many of them have been lost. With the assistance of Cola Bruno, a portion only of these, arranged in sixteen books, was first printed at Venice (1535-1536). In this edition, dedicated to Paul III, Bembo relates how, when he left Rome, he threw into a chest a pile of rough drafts of letters which he had written in Leo’s name during the Pontificate of that Pope ; and how his friend Latino Giovenale Manetti had discovered these nearly-forgotten letters and had prevailed on him to publish them. The dedication to Paul III followed, so that these letters might be held up as a model to other writers of the chancery. In this edition are to be found the letters, the antique expressions and constructions in which have been often quoted as proofs of the paganism which permeated the Papal Court at that time. Such might be the case had these letters been sent out in the form in which they stand printed, but this was not the case. Most of the pagan expressions were inserted later, when the letters were printed ; for the greater number of the expressions cited are not to be found in the originals as they were despatched from the chancery of Leo X. A servile adherence to the antique would have been out of keeping with the intention of the Medici Pope, who was so large-minded in every respect. Though Leo X proclaimed his strong desire that “the Latin tongue should flourish during his Pontificate”, he did not by any means belong to those narrow-minded Latinists who regarded Cicero as the only model of language. “It sufficed him that whatever he had to listen to should be real Latin, flowing and elegant”.

Bembo took up a prominent position at the Court of Leo X, where everyone was delighted by his intellectual refinement. How indispensable he was to the Pope can be seen by the value which was attached to his mediation. His most intimate friends were Cardinals Bibbiena and Medici, the banker Chigi, and the poets Tebaldeo, Accolti, and Castiglione; while his closest friendship of all was with Raphael. The part taken by him in the intellectual development of the painter of Urbino can scarcely be over estimated; they used to wander about the neighbourhood of Rome, revelling in the beauty of antiquity and of nature.

At the end of April, 1519, the state of his health, combined with family reasons, compelled Bembo to leave Rome, whither he did not return until the spring of 1520. Again, a year later, on the same plea of health, he asked and obtained leave of absence. In his heart he was determined to finally resign his position in Rome, settle in Padua, and there live in peace and devote himself to study. Leo X has been accused of being the cause of Bembo leaving the Eternal City; this is true in so far that nothing short of receiving a Cardinal’s hat would have kept him there. That the Pope would not confer this dignity on the elegant man of the world may easily be forgiven him; Bembo, however, thought himself worthy of the purple. But still more than disappointed hopes or considerations of health, what weighed with him was the fact that the fatiguing and severe duties of his life at the Papal Court were uncongenial to a man of his literary tastes. Moreover, the death of his friends, Raphael, Chigi, and Bibbiena, robbed Rome of its chief attractions ; and his many benefices afforded him a sufficient income to devote himself to literature, far away from the turmoil of a court life.

In his work on the poets of the Rome of Leo X, Francesco Arsilli extols Bembo because the pure Tuscan speech which flowed from his pen by no means interfered with his being a master of Latin eloquence. Yet, in spite of his unbounded praise, Arsilli would give him only the second place among the men of letters : the first being given to Sadoleto. It is true that, in more respects than one, this distinguished man holds a position higher than that of his colleague.

He was theologian, philosopher, orator, poet, author, and diplomatist; but it was not only by the versatility of his gifts that he excelled Bembo, but also by the depth and purity of his character. He had always been a model priest, and was a living proof that, where no deterioration of morals is involved, classical studies may become a matter of absorption without injury.

Ever since the publication of his poem on the discovery of the Laocoon group, Sadoleto’s renown had been established among the men of letters of Rome; but he took but little part in the brilliant life of the Court of Leo X. As much as he could he led a life of retirement, and devoted himself above all things to the duties of his office and to profound study. His only recreations of a lighter kind were in the social gatherings of literary friends, at which a meal of classic simplicity was partaken of, followed by the recitation of poems, and by discourses. Many years afterwards, Sadoleto recalled with joy and longing those happy times.

The question of ecclesiastical reform occupied the mind of this deeply-religious man. All recognitions of his services, which would have been of the greatest use to him in his position, he invariably refused ; in this he gave a rare example of a disinterestedness, most unusual at that time, in never seeking to obtain a benefice for himself. When, in 1517, Leo X, who had already given him many proofs of his favour, presented him with the bishopric of Carpentras, Sadoleto wished to refuse it, and only consented to take it by obedience to the clearly-expressed desire of the Pope. Having accepted it, he wished to go at once and reside in his diocese, and there devote himself entirely to study and the duties of his sacred office ; however, Leo refused to part with this tried and faithful servant as long as he lived. “Would to God”, wrote Sadoleto, “that I could leave Rome and retire to my diocese, and give myself to Christ, my only Lord!”

Only a small portion of the letters written in the Pope’s name by Sadoleto during the term of his office as secretary have been printed. These are written in the classic Ciceronian epistolary style, so highly valued at the time; they are models of form and elegance, full of academic grace, and permeated by that delicate courtesy known only to the Curia. In many of the letters he understood how to give expression in a masterly way to the exact thoughts of his master. He made use in these of classical figures, his method in so doing being put into words by himself in his admirable treatise on the education of children. “It is without doubt permissible”, he says, “to consider the methods of expression in vogue in those languages which we ourselves want to use. Thus, where there is no question of a specially theological subject, I am willing to introduce and adorn my speech with Latin figures and constructions. Thus I would, for example, speak of Hercules or Zeus (medius fidius) or of the ‘immortal gods’ collectively. Such expressions are not to be taken literally, and serve only to give greater strength and brilliancy to what I am saying, and preserve the idea of antiquity. For when a language is ornamented by the figures of speech belonging to it, it has more weight, and contains greater power to teach right and truth, and inculcate the good which has to be practiced”.

Sadoleto was not the only writer who, though on quite other subjects, knew how to harmonize real Christianity with an ardent love of antiquity. Of one mind with him were Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola, Alberto Pio di Carpi, and the young Gian Matteo Giberti, who rejoiced in the favour of both the Pope and Cardinal Medici.

One of Giberti’s friends was the canon-regular, Marco Girolamo Vida (born 1490, died 1566), who had come to Rome in the days of Julius II, and had remained there pure and unspotted, leading the life of a model priest in the midst of the general corruption. It does honour to Leo X that he should have preferred this excellent man in such a marked way that he went generally by the name of the Pope’s especial favourite. Vida’s early poems about chess and silk­worms pleased Leo X so much, that he sent for the author, rewarded him, and bade him set aside all other work and devote his powers to a Christian epic, the subject of which was to be our Divine Saviour’s life. That Vida might be able to give himself over undisturbedly to this great task, the Pope—who wished to be another Augustus to another Virgil—gave him the priorate of the monastery of S. Silvestro at Frascati. Few other places in the neighbourhood of Rome could have been better fitted to be the abode of a poet than this cheerful little town, full of classic memories, with its picturesque heights and glorious views. There, in the midst of forests of old olive trees and pines, in view of the magnificent panorama of the Roman Campagna, the Christiade of Vida flowed from his pen, though Leo X did not live to see it completed. By his inspiration of this epic the Pope has rendered a permanent service to Christian poetry. This service is all the greater because, by this act of glorification of Christ, in which Leo was instrumental, “the finest artistic epic of the time of the Renaissance proved the injustice of the accusation made by Luther, that the Papacy had formed itself into a barrier between the Redeemer and the redeemed”.

Vida’s work cannot be appreciated unless we put before ourselves the difficulties connected with his task. In consequence of the inviolable nature of its dogmatic character, it was at the outset impossible to give free scope to his poetic imagination. He had to destroy much which, humanly and poetically speaking, was excellent, because it was theologically inadmissible. It was impossible for the greatest poetical genius to approach the calm grandeur and noble simplicity which meets us at every turn in the chapters of the Bible narrative. All Christian poets who have ventured to deal with the subject have had to contend with this difficulty, and even Vida was unable to overcome it. But undoubtedly he attained to more than his predecessors. The noble and inexhaustible subject is treated in a manner closely corresponding with the Gospel narrative, “a dignified and majestic, and at the same time an elegant and touching production, expressed in the finest Latin diction”.  The divine nature of Christ shines forth in the poet’s explicit dogmatic declaration of the reality of His human nature. The reader will never forget certain passages, as, for instance, that in which Vida describes the flight into Egypt and the life of Jesus at Nazareth.

The Passion is the culminating point of the narrative. Fear, called in by Satan, “the great, black, unconquerable monster, to whom no other fury of the abyss can be compared for hideousness”, turns the scale in the mind of the wavering Pilate ; the die is cast, and at the words, “King of the Jews”, the death of Christ is decided on. With the Risen One the “golden race” of Christians springs into life, and, with a picture of their spread over all the world, the poet closes his work, which is full of many beauties of the first order. By glancing through it we can understand the enthusiasm it evoked in contemporary writers, who in verse and prose hailed Vida as the Christian Virgil.

One peculiar merit of the Christiade is that the poet rejected all those pagan accessories which in other poems have nearly destroyed the Christian tone. He took Virgil as his model for style and versification, but in essentials the poem remains uninfluenced by the classical element. Consequently, Vida’s poem affords to the reader a more unalloyed pleasure than does the famous epic of Sannazaro, perfect though it is in form, on the Nativity of Christ. In it, and especially in the third book, too much of pagan mythology is employed. Nevertheless, the reality of Sannazaro’s Christianity cannot be doubted, any more than can be that of the many other poets who allowed themselves the same license. Very much that at first sight looks like paganism is in fact mere poetical license, or at most a concession to the language of the classics.

In character Sannazaro does not stand so high as Vida. This is demonstrated by his relations with Leo X; he took up the case of the pending marriage of his much-esteemed friend Cassandra Marchese with passionate vehemence. This affair has never been properly explained, because the acts of the process cannot be found ; it is therefore impossible to say whether the severe accusations which Sannazaro brought against Leo X on account of his decision in the affair, were well founded or not.

In a moment of great excitement the poet wrote a mordant epigram in which he ridiculed Leo, and compared him to a blind mole who wanted, against his nature, to be a lion. There is a difference of opinion as to whether these and similar attacks ever came to the ears of the Pope. As a matter of fact a very flattering Brief was sent on the 6th of August, 1521, to Sannazaro, in which the Pope requested him to publish the poem on the Nativity of Christ without delay. This desire was founded, so ran the Brief, on the hope that the Queen of Heaven might be glorified by the poem, which might act as an antidote to the many writings which were composed with evil intent, “While the Church is being rent and tormented by her enemies, do you exalt her to heaven. Our century will be made famous by the light of thy poem. On one side, standing against her is Goliath, and on the other the frenzied Saul. Let the valiant David come forward and overcome the one with his sling, and calm the other with the sweet sound of his harp”. It has not transpired what answer Sannazaro gave to this request of the Pope ; but a distressing proof of the irreconcilable spirit of the poet is to be found in the abusive epigram which he wrote about Leo immediately after the death of that Pontiff. He made an unworthy attack on the memory of the deceased, based on the false report that the Pope had died without the last sacraments.

The humanists, Girolamo Fracastoro and Battista Spagnolo Mantovano, were more sparing than Sannazaro in their use of the classical elements in literature. The former, who extolled the patronage of Leo X in extravagant language.il did not really belong to the Roman literary world, though united to it by the closest ties. In his poem Joseph, Fracastoro disdained the use of any pagan phrases. It is to the credit of this humanist, famous alike as physician and philosopher, that he devoted a didactic poem to the curse of the time, the morbus gallicus. The elegant and impressive verses on this delicate subject are written with an absence of anything approaching to indecency; certain allusions to ancient mythology being in harmony with its purport. The opening of the second book, which tells of the misfortunes which had overtaken Italy, and indicates the restoration of peace which Rome enjoyed under the rule of the “magnanimous Leo”, is very impressive.

The Carmelite, Battista Spagnolo Mantovano, elected General of his Order in 1513, who died on March 20th, 1516, and was declared Blessed by Leo XIII, crosses our path like an apparition. Like Sadoleto he united a deep piety with a great enthusiasm for the treasures of antiquity. He was a most prolific poet, and his fame soon spread throughout Italy, and even beyond it into Germany. His exaggerated admirers gave him the name of a second Virgil. Although he did not entirely discard mythological allusions, even in his sacred hymns, he used them with great moderation. In several ways he furthered a Christian reaction against the paganism of antiquity, even though he could not rid himself of it altogether. In the beginning of his “Calendar of Feasts” (De sacris diebus) he tells the reader that he must not expect to find in the pages which follow anything about the false deities. He is not going to treat of Jupiter, Venus, or Juno, but only of those heroes who had attained to heaven, whom the Almighty Father had admitted to the “ethereal city”. As the pious Carmelite sings in turn of all the great feasts of the Church, intertwining with them the feasts of the saints, like a beautiful garland of flowers, he brings out the contrast between paganism and the victory gained over it by Christianity. Christ and His saints—such is the burden of his song—have overthrown the false gods ; and this key note runs through the whole poem. The Incarnation of the Son of God is at hand, and the end of the worship of false gods is approaching. Mercury, who, hovering round the Angel Gabriel, has followed him from Mount Carmel, overhears the mysterious greeting of the Angel to the holy Maiden of Nazareth, and at once suspects danger. He hastens back to the gods to tell them what he has heard, and they, full of agitation, take counsel together. They tremble, and Venus and Juno weep; Pallas, full of grief, throws away her spear, but takes it up again, advising that new arts shall be employed to maintain their ancient dominion. In vain! The Redeemer of the world is born, renews all things, laws, sacrifices, and priesthood, and conquers the world. “Give way, O ye gods”, sings the poet on the 25th of December; “forsake your temples, for your fame is at an end ! Delphic Apollo, shut the door of your false temple;, sink with thy tripod into Hades ; cast thine oracle into the Stygian abyss. Venus, Juno, Jupiter, flee into darkness, for now is your power upon earth at an end. Away, ye tyrants, give up your place and honours, which have been stolen, for behold, the true King enters on his kingdom!”

After such a Christian proclamation it signifies but little that the poet should sometimes make use of ancient classical epithets and call heaven Olympus, God the Father the Thunderer, or hell Hades. That the stars and days should bear pagan names, says the poet, need not trouble us, for they have come to mean good things for us, and can no longer harm us. Battista Spagnolo Mantovano dedicated his “Calendar of Feasts” to Leo X. In the poem on the Feast of SS. Cosmas and Damian, and again on that which celebrated all the canonized Popes of the name of Leo, he took the opportunity to offer his homage to his exalted patron. At the same time he pointed out to him with holy liberty the greatness of the tasks committed to him. He especially named three of these, the restoration of peace to Italy, the protection of the Christian faith against the Turks, and the reform of “the Roman Curia, which was infected by a deep corruption which spread poison throughout all countries”. “Help, holy father Leo”, exclaimed the poet, “for Christendom is nigh its fall”.

We may rank with Spagnolo’s Calendar of Feasts the work of Zaccaria Ferreri, written by order of the Pope. This learned though restless man had set himself up under Julius II. as the champion of the schismatic Council of Pisa. After Leo’s election he resolved to make his peace with the Pope. He offered his submission in the form of a Latin poem, which is a remarkable imitation of Dante’s Divina Commedia. Although in this poem he demanded a reform of the Church, which was to be led by Rome, and used great freedom of speech, Leo accepted the work very graciously. Ferreri, who was warmly recommended by others, not only received absolution from the censures under which he had fallen by reason of his share in the schism of Pisa, but was singled out in various ways by the indulgent Pope. He accompanied Leo on the latter’s expedition to Bologna, was made Bishop, and in 1519 was appointed Nuncio in Russia and Poland. There he laboured for the reform of the clergy and the suppression of the Lutheran heresy. How highly Leo X thought of Ferreri as a poet can be seen by the fact that he turned to him for assistance in his reform of the breviary. It is, however, characteristic that the proposed amendments did not affect the subject but the form of the breviary, the sole object of Leo’s efforts being the improvement of the language in which it was written. Ferreri seemed to him the right man to do this, for he had already made a name by the composition of a number of hymns in honour of the saints. Ferreri threw himself with ardour into the work, but Leo died before its completion. It was not until 1525 that a portion of the work, consisting of a revision of the hymns of the breviary, appeared in print. It is related in the edition of Ferreri’s letters to Clement VII how Leo X, being full of zeal for the Church, and conversant with good literature, and impressed by the deficiencies of the hymns daily used for the praises of God, and seeing how far they were from possessing “true latinity or right metre”, gave him the commission “either to improve those in use, or create new hymns devoid of barbarisms”. So great was the interest taken by Leo in the work, that he read each hymn as Ferreri completed it. Clement VII confirmed the commission to Ferreri to remove everything which contemporary Latinists could find fault with in the rendering of the mediaeval hymns. The judgment of posterity is not as favourable as was that of contemporaries. It is undeniable that Ferreri’s hymns, belonging as they do to the best time of the Renaissance, contain much that is excellent; nevertheless, in spite of the blamelessness of their classical form, they seem to a sound taste to be weak imitations of the grand, powerful strophes of an earlier time. Nothing of the old canticles remains; everything is remodelled and in some parts thought out afresh. If we compare the best of these, e.g. the Veni Creator with the ancient version, we see with amazement how formal the hymn has been rendered, and how even its sense has been lost. Only too often the grand religious dignity suffers under its profane setting. The poetry also of the hymns has suffered. For instance, the wonderful strength of the hymn Coelestis urbs Jerusalem is quite lost. Worse still is the clothing of these sacred canticles in classical language, full of pagan pictures and allusions, which are introduced with incredible naivete. Thus, the Holy Trinity is described as “triforme numen Olympi” ; the Mother of God as “fortunate goddess” (felix dea), or “most pure nymph (nympha candidissima)”. God is spoken of as the great ruler of the gods (deorum maximus rector). The humanist, rejoicing in the beauties of classical constructions, preponderates in Ferreri to a most unsuitable degree.

None of the poets who have been mentioned were Romans. Nevertheless, at Leo’s “court of the Muses” native talent was not wanting, the result of the efforts of Nicholas V to overcome the remarkable mental sterility of Rome in his time. To the Roman poets belong Marcello Palonio, who sang of the Battle of Ravenna, Egidio Gallo, Battista Casali, Antonio Lelio, Bernardino Capella, Vincenzo Pimpinelli, Lorenzo Vallati, Giambattista Sanga, Lorenzo Grana, Scipione Lancellotti, Camillo Porcari, who was made professor of elocution by Leo X, and, lastly, Evangelista Fausto Maddaleni de' Capodiferro.

This distinguished disciple of Pomponio Leto, to whom Leo X had given a professorship, had had relations with Julius II, and was one of the most prolific poets of the time, though he was not a happy example. At first he had extolled the Borgia, and finding that this was not remunerative, he changed round and made himself the mouthpiece of all the accusations brought against them by the enemies of their race. Many of his poems betray, by their obscenity, the influence of antiquity. The prolific poet lauded Leo X. in numerous verses, and sang of the different things connected with him, from the elephant presented by the King of Portugal to the artists and works of art of the Rome of the day.

Several members of the Mellini family, whose name survives in the villa on Monte Mario, and in the tower near S. Agnese, were distinguished as poets. One of them, Celso Mellini, won celebrity both by his dispute with the French humanist Longueil and by his tragic and pre mature death.

Marcantonio Casanova also was born in Rome, though his family came from Como. This intellectual imitator of Martial dedicated his Heroica to the Pope, and was in return raised to the rank of count. He was abbreviator apostolic, and had the reputation of being one of the most elegant and ready poets of his day. The name of “the new Catullus” was given to him, and his epigrams were characterized as “sublime”.

The Mantuan, Giovanni Muzzarelli, of whom at first no account was made, drew attention to himself by a laudatory poem on Leo X. The Pope rewarded him by appointing him Governor of Mondaino in the Romagna, where he met with a violent death. Among the court poets was also the Sicilian Jano Vitale, who, in his poem on the election of Leo X, overflowing with repulsive flattery, did not shrink from saying that a new Jupiter had come down from high Olympus who, like Apollo, would heal all sicknesses. With the same want of taste a Dominican, Zanobi Acciaiuoli, in other respects a clever man, broke out into a poem, in which, pleading for the adornment of the deserted Quirinal, he compared the Medici Pope with the sun-god Apollo.

Guido Postumo Silvestri was also highly esteemed as a poet, and sang of the happiness of Italy during the reign of Leo X. In recognition of this the Pope had the poet's ruined possessions restored. Postumo repaid this liberality by an elegy which concludes with these words : —

Pro cytherae meritis tribuit Leo Maximus aurum,

Jussit et hinc vatis tecta nitere sui,

Quippe Amphionii non ficta est fabula muri,

Si domus haec blaudas structa canore lyrae est.

Another poem by the same reached a climax of flattery in a petition to Christ, Mary, and the saints to leave Leo (this numeri) for a little longer among men, as there were already saints enough in heaven! The same man, in a long poem, celebrated the hunting expeditions of his “divine protector”. Today, Postumo, the friend of Ariosto, and the correspondent of Isabella d'Este, is as much forgotten as is Antonio Tebaldeo of Ferrara, although the latter is remembered by his celebrated tomb in S. Maria in Via Lata. Originally intended to be a physician, Tebaldeo later entered the ecclesiastical state. In Rome he soon won the Pope’s favour and the friendship of the principal members of the Court. His chief friends were Bibbiena, Bembo and Raphael, who painted his portrait. Tebaldeo, who may be compared in many ways with Bembo, wrote verses in Latin as well as Italian; among other subjects he sang of Leo’s endeavours to promote a crusade ; he also described in verse Cardinal Medici's villa on Monte Mario. As Tebaldeo was a very skilful improvisatore, he received many tokens of favour from the Pope ; a Latin epigram in praise of Leo X won for him the princely gift of five hundred ducats.

Besides poets of Italian origin, there were a number of foreigners; for humanists flocked from all parts to the Eternal City, there to study or make their fortunes. The Germans were, comparatively speaking, numerous; besides Hutten mention is made of Sustenius, Petrus Aperbachius, Janus Hadelius Saxo, Caius Silvanus, Kaspar Ursinus Velius, and Michael Humelberg. All of these were friends of the hospitable Goritz.

The number of poets residing in Medicean Rome is given at more than a hundred by Arsilli and others. The Eternal City was inundated with good and bad poems, odes, letters, epigrams, eclogues; a pasquinade of 1521 remarks that versifiers in Rome were more numerous than the stars in the heavens. But the merit of the poems was not in proportion to the number of those who lived under the shadow of the Curia. The oblivion which has been the fate of these Latin versifiers of the time, whose poetry, instead of the divine afflatus, breathed nothing but the atmosphere of the court, is only what they deserved. Nevertheless their importance in the history of the litera­ture of the day must not be denied.

The new-fashioned enthusiasm for Latin poetry in Rome had a strong influence on contemporary Italian poetry. Prolific as were the results in this field of literature, there was a singular lack of originality. Even the two best of the lyric poets, Bembo and Molza, in spite of their high gifts, produced nothing better than elegant imitations. In their footsteps there followed an army of imitators, who obtained among Italians the appropriate name of rimatori. Francesco Maria Molza, who went by the name of the modern Tibullus, was in reality a highly-gifted poet, but unfortunately wasted his talents in an unsettled and dissolute life. The names of the remainder of the Italian poets survive only in literary records, and it is with astonishment that we see the praise which was lavished on them at the time that they wrote. Who, for instance, knows today anything about the poet Bernardo Accolti, “the great light of Arezzo?” “The only one” (l'unico) is how he styled himself, and how he was styled by others. Accolti sang the praises of the generous Leo, who had rewarded him so lavishly that he was able to buy the title of Duke of Nepi. The fame of this native of Arezzo is today quite inconceivable ; but he enchanted the society of his time by his gay, witty prattle, which was joined to the art, then highly valued, of accompanying his verses with suitable music. Pietro Aretino, who had just come to Rome, being subsidized by the Pope, and high in the favour of Cardinal Medici, relates that “when the heavenly Accolti was about to improvise on the lute, the shops were shut and prelates and other personages flocked to listen to him”. Pietro Aretino was himself sent one day by the Pope, to remind Accolti of a visit which he had promised to pay His Holiness. When Accolti entered the Vatican, Leo X commanded that every person should give way before him. The poem which he sang about the Blessed Virgin filled his hearers with such admiration that, when he had finished, one and all cried out : “Long live the divine poet!” This production is preserved, and when we read it we can but wonder at the applause which it called forth; undeniably the standard of excellence in those days was very different from what it is now.

The poet Agostino Beazzano was provided with rich benefices; he expressed his thanks to the Pope in Italian sonnets and Latin epistles. The poet Giangiorgio Trissino stood still higher in the favour of Leo X, and was sent by him on diplomatic missions. This prominent citizen of Vicenza, having come to Rome in 1514, armed with warm recommendations from Isabella d'Este and Cardinals Bibbiena and Luigi d'Aragona, was received most honourably by the Pope. In the autumn of the following year Trissino was charged with a difficult mission in Germany to the Emperor Maximilian, which kept him on the other side of the Alps until the spring of 1516; in the autumn of the same year there followed a mission to Venice; the distinguished nobleman refused to receive any remuneration for his services. As early as 1515 he had dedicated to the Pope his tragedy Sofonisba, not without misgivings that the classical-minded Medici would take amiss that the work should be written in Italian. The subject of the poem, written in blank verse (versi sciolti), is borrowed from the thirteenth book of Livy; the tragedy is cold and lifeless, and as for Trissino’s heroic epic, Italy liberated by the gods, which appeared in 1547, it can only be condemned as an utter failure.

Trissino’s friend, Giovanni Rucellai, also wrote in blank verse with no better results. || Being a near relative of the Pope’s, the latter often entrusted him with political business, and sent him, for instance, on a mission to Francis I at a critical moment (in September 1520).It is asserted by many that Rucellai’s tragedy Rosmunda was put on the stage on the occasion of Leo’s sojourn in Florence; but there is nothing certain about this. Among the poets of that time there appears the name of another relative of the Pope’s, Pietro de' Pazzi ; how far the praises lavished on him by contemporaries were justified must remain a matter of doubt.

It is remarkable that the Medici Pope who patronized so many poetasters and vagrant poets should have been on very distant terms with Ariosto. Confident of a friendly reception by the Pope, the poet had hastened to Rome after the election of Leo X ; when the courteous reception with which he met raised the poet’s expectations. All the greater was his astonishment when this led to nothing. The clever satires in which Ariosto pictured the affairs of Rome prove the greatness and depth of his disillusionment. Still, all through his disappointment, and in all his most bitter attacks, one can see his intention of screening the Pope personally, having received from him a privilege against piracy for his Orlando, and many other tokens of favour.

Next to poetry, rhetoric occupied the most prominent place in the Rome of Leo X. As a child of the Renaissance, as well as belonging to a people devoted to things pleasant to the ear, the Pope enjoyed good Latin prose as keenly as the most melodious verse ; the replies to the solemn speeches of Ambassadors sent to make their obedientia, which had been occasions of confusion to Julius II, who had not his classical culture, were a real delight to his successor ; he understood how to reply with an astounding readiness and elegance. This skill contributed not a little to the renown of the Medici Pope at a time when such exaggerated value was placed on classical elegance, as to cause a good rhetorician to be put on a level with a great painter.

The speeches which were most admired in those days fail to stir us if we read them now. There is much classical learning in them but very little originality ; even in the best, the happiest thoughts and the noblest conceptions are submerged by a flood of high-flown phrases. In vain do we look for true imagination or deep thought in these declamations ; the elegance of the form drives out every thing else ; the purport of the discourses is often horrible, and the want of truthfulness is indescribable! As in the classical letters of the time, so also in the discourses, infinite praise is dispensed for which there is not a shadow of justification. When facts failed, a supposed intention is lauded, and brilliant phrases are strung together which bear a semblance to praise. This power of disingenuous flattery seemed to be innate in the orator of the day. Often, for instance, a funeral oration might be very much admired and extolled as a work of art, although the man eulogized might not possess any one of the qualities falsely attributed to him. If only fine-sounding phrases, well delivered and sonorous, were poured into their ears, the hearers were quite satisfied. In this respect Leo X. was no exception ; the exaggerated value he set on fine discourses is shown by his decree issued in 1514, that every meeting of the Conservatori should be opened with a speech by a born Roman about distinguished Roman citizens of past ages. The feast of the patronal saints of the Medici, SS. Cosmas and Damian, was celebrated by orations ; on one of these occasions Raffaello Brandolini, so renowned as an improvisatore and letter-­writer, made an oration and afterwards glorified his exalted patron in an elegant dialogue entitled Leo. The Turkish peril was also the occasion of numerous orations.

Besides these orations the very inferior sermons in the Papal chapel must not be overlooked ; these very often could not be distinguished from ordinary speeches. Leo X desired that they should be short, not exceeding a quarter of an hour in length ; not seldom the Pope sent for a preacher who had made good his case and expressed his approval. Giovio says that a sermon well preached might lead to a bishopric. In 1513, Leo X had the censorship of the court preachers by the Master of the Sacred Palace made more severe, but even then it was far from strict. The abuse, existing in the time of Julius II, and animadverted on by Erasmus, of the Ciceronian phrases with which preachers treated more of antiquity than of Christianity, continued under Leo X. A quite irreproachable witness, the Master of Ceremonies, Paris de Grassis, relates the scandal given by a humanist preacher who, on the Feast of St. John the Baptist in 1517, appealed, in the presence of the Pope, to the gods and goddesses “in a manner more pagan than Christian”. These preachers saw no more evil in this than did the humanist Mario Equicola, who, in his discourse at a beatification by Leo X, quoted Castor, Romulus, and others, who had been raised to be gods. Pierio Valeriano went still further in his funeral oration on Cardinal Bibbiena, delivered in the presence of Leo X. He thus appealed to the Cardinal’s shade: “We ask not to what part of Olympus thine immortal virtue has led thee in thy golden chariot; but when thou passest through the heavenly spheres, and when thou beholdest the heroes there, then forget not to pray the King of heaven and the other gods that, if they wish to enjoy the worship of others upon earth, they may add to Leo's life the years of which the impious Fates have deprived thee and Giuliano de' Medici”.

Many of the discourses of that time were not delivered in the form in which we now possess them in manuscripts and printed editions. This applies equally to the great oration alleged to have been delivered at the Capitol, on the 21st of April, 1521, on the festival of the Palilia, by the Riformatore of the University, when, in accordance with a resolution of the Senate, of the year 1518, a colossal marble statue of Leo X was erected. The orator takes a survey of nearly the whole history of Rome ; he even begins by the first records of the history of mankind. Being a Roman born, he dwells with preference on the ancient history of his own city. He impressively draws the contrast between what it was in former days and what it was at the time in which he was speaking. “The seven hills, covered of yore with houses, are covered today with ruins and vineyards. Of the sixteen forums with their basilicas and temples we see now only open spaces. Of the twenty aqueducts there now remains only the Aqua Virgo. Of the thirteen baths all that is left to us are the ruins of those of Diocletian and Caracalla. Of the three hundred temples the sole one remaining perfect is the Pantheon. Of Vespasian’s amphitheatre, once counted among the wonders of the world, we can find only a crumbling fragment. Where are the five Naumachia, the eleven Nymphaea, the four Circuses, the six great obelisks, the twenty-four libraries, the ten basilicas, the twenty-two bronze horses, the thirty-six triumphal arches, and all the many other edifices? They all lie in ruins, shattered or burned for lime, and destroyed in such a manner that no trace of them remains”.

The pain of the orator at this unparalleled destruction grows upon him the longer he dwells on the wonders of ancient Rome. He looks so exclusively at the bright side of antiquity that he rejects as unfounded the accusation that the Romans of old could have carried on unjust wars or oppressed provinces. In the darkest possible colours he paints the “barbarians from Gaul and Germania who overwhelmed the Roman Empire”. In the second part of his writing—for such must his oration be styled —the author dwells on the fame of “modern Christian Rome. Having conquered lands and seas by our arms and won immortal renown by our literature, there only remained for us to win a share in heaven by religion. Thus, even as Numa succeeded Romulus, did religion succeed to the glories of war”. Then he enters on enthusiastic praise of the Popes, “who not only represented in part the ancient empire on earth, but founded a new and spiritual empire”. No city in the world had promoted Christianity as mightily as had Rome. This is proved by the number of Popes who have sprung from Rome, by the thousands of martyrs whose relics we venerate to this day on the Latin, Appian, and Ostian ways. If, therefore, the Roman Empire perished as a human work, we must rejoice because its ruin was the beginning of something new and better. Thus are we born in happier times ; for we do not honour the cruel Mars, the adulterous Jupiter, the corrupt Venus, the deceitful Mercury, but the triune God. All this and much more, he goes on, Rome has owed to the Popes ; but none of them has been so popular as Leo X, whose marble statue was about to be set up. He described with enthusiasm the services of Leo to the city, and extolled his life and good qualities. The Pope had given edifices to the city and saints to heaven ; he had built churches, reformed morals, and restored peace to Rome, and proved himself the father of his country. In conclusion, the orator declared that not to Jupiter would he pray for a long life for the Pope, but, to the Capitoline Virgin, the Mother of God.

Even as in this panegyric, so also in a similar work by Matteo Ercolano, the Christian element is given more importance than we should have expected, considering the pagan current which ran through the literature of the time. Ercolano, who, as an old friend of the Medici, experienced the favour of Leo in many ways, confined himself to relating the life of his exalted protector. He gives many interesting particulars in his biography of Leo X, but unfortunately his work reaches only to the fourth year of his pontificate.

As masters of Ciceronian oratory the first place must be given to Tommaso Inghirami and Camillo Porzio, made Bishop of Teramo by Leo X. These “lights of the Roman Academy”, exalted as such by Giovio, had as rivals for the laurels of eloquence Battista Casali, Lorenzo Grana, Blosio Palladio, Sadoleto, Egidio Canisio, Vincenzo Pimpinelli, and many other humanists, not a few of whom had the honour of showing their skill before the Pope.

A learned Frenchman came to Rome in 1516 who proved to be a formidable rival of Porzio and Casali. Christophe Longueil (latinized into Longolius) attracted to himself many friends, among whom were Bembo and Sadoleto. Those, however, who were hostile to and jealous of the foreigner did not fail to show their venom, and turned on him on account of a speech he had delivered years before (1508) in Poitiers, in which he had maintained the superiority of France over Rome and all Italy. Longueil tried to make amends for this, and at the end of 1518, in Giberti’s house, made five speeches in praise of Rome. His friends contrived to obtain for him the freedom of the city, but his enemies on their side managed to delay the drawing up of the necessary diploma. When Longueil, after waiting for some time, asked on the 9th of April, 1519, for the fulfilment of the promise, the Conservatori declared that what he had said earlier in depreciation of Rome must first be gone into.

Two literary parties bitterly opposed to one another now sprang up : on the one side being the friends of the learned Frenchman, and on the other Roman patriots full of national sentiment, under the leadership of the young Celso Mellini, who was supported by many others. Jealousy of the ambitious, self-conceited foreigner was all-powerful, and to this there was added an extreme susceptibility as to the greatness of Rome, and the fear of the growth of a foreign humanism which seemed to threaten the literary primacy of Italy. It was maintained quite seriously that Longueil, who was known for his diligence in copying manuscripts, was secretly employed by Erasmus and Budaeus to rob the libraries of Rome of their literary treasures.

From the humanists the feeling soon spread to the people, who turned with fanaticism against the French and indeed against all foreigners, whom they styled barbarians. To take a part against Longueil appeared to many in the light of a patriotic duty; a morbid and exaggerated idea of nationality united itself naturally with a biassed Renaissance.! Although the literary aristocracy, represented by Bembo and Sadoleto, placed itself on the side of the foreigner, his adversaries were in an immense numerical superiority, and the waves of excitement rose higher and higher. Even if the dark description of Longueil be exaggerated, it nevertheless speaks for itself that the German colony felt itself in danger, and through the Anima repudiated all connection with Longueil.

It is highly significant that such an affair should have stirred up an excitement so great, that it has with reason been asserted that the Longueil affair caused more dis quietude in Rome in 1519 than did the movement of Martin Luther. The Pope took the side of him who was attacked, and, manifestly under the influence of Bembo and Sadoleto, showed to Longueil, on the I2th of April, 1519, the most unusual tokens of favour.

On the other side, a formal deed of accusation was drawn up by the opponents of Longueil, by which he was solemnly cited to appear before the senate and people of Rome on the charge of high treason (crimen laesae maiestatis) because of his utterances against Rome and Italy. With boisterous fervour a court of justice was assembled, and proceedings were instituted against him on the model of those of ancient Rome, which shows more than could anything else the fantastic dreamland in which many of the humanists lived.

Never before had the halls of the Capitol witnessed such a large assembly of learned and literary men as on the day when the trial of Longueil was opened. It is rightly ascribed to the influence of Bembo and Sadoleto that the proposal to take back the freedom of the city given to Longueil was negatived. Nothing, however, could prevent the proposed charge being brought against him, and it was decided that the matter should be discussed by both sides, and public sentence be passed in accordance with the result. Thus in yet another form was Rome to live antiquity over again.

Great were the preparations, and greater still was the state of general expectation. Many Cardinals and prelates, and even the Pope, went to the Capitol on the day fixed, anxious to enjoy the spectacle of a great literary contest. But disappointment awaited them ; for Longueil had deemed it prudent to withdraw by secret flight (in the middle of June, 1519) from the wrath of his enemies.

The clever speech of the young Mellini, which stirred up the national passions of the Romans, left nothing to be desired in the way of violence. In all seriousness he demanded that, in accordance with the ancient Roman law, his adversary should be put to death, or at least cast into prison as a traitor. Contemporaries testify to the excitement which prevailed, J and Baldassare Castiglione is sure that, had Longueil been present, he would have been either thrown from the window, or torn in pieces. Mellini’s eloquence made an impression on Longueil’s friends, and he won by his speech the commendation of Leo X, who was, however, by no means induced to give up his support of Longueil. The Frenchman's defence, which his friends had printed in Rome in August, worked in his favour. In it he treats his cause with great skill; he throws himself into the fiction of an ancient trial, speaks as a republican of old Rome who, finding himself accused before the senate and people, defends himself and endeavours to show that he is not guilty according to the provisions of the Lex Julia. He not only eloquently recalls the greatness of ancient Rome, but points to the spiritual supremacy of the Eternal City as the centre of the Church. “It is true”, he says, “that of yore your fathers ruled over a great portion of the world, and although today you no longer send forth your praetors and proconsuls, you despatch all over the world your bishops and arch bishops—Spaniards, Frenchmen, Germans, Hungarians, and Englishmen—in short, all men, for all who confess the true religion of Jesus Christ belong to Rome”.

An unexpected turn in favour of Longueil was caused by the untimely death of his adversary, Celso Mellini. In November, 1519, he was taking part in one of the Pope's hunting expeditions near Magliana, and on that occasion received a special mark of the favour of the Pope. Over joyed and anxious to convey the good news to his relatives, he hastened back to Rome ; and in the darkness of the night fell into a swollen stream and was drowned. The death of the talented young man caused general sorrow, and many poems were written to his memory. The Pope caused a bridge to be set up on the unlucky spot with a Latin inscription, still preserved, remarkable for its elegant simplicity.

Meanwhile, Longueil had removed from Paris to Louvain ; when there, he visited Erasmus, and the trial conducted so seriously in Rome struck this eminent critic as most strange. In spite of his bitter experience, Longueil could no longer resist his longing to be once more in beautiful Italy; and by the help of Bembo found a quiet refuge, first in Venice, and then in Padua, where he lived on a pension given to him by Leo X, and devoted himself entirely to study. In February, 1520, he had proudly refused a professorship in Florence offered to him by Cardinal Medici through Sadoleto. In May, 1520, however, he had the satisfaction of receiving the diploma of the freedom of the city of Rome. It was through Bembo that a request was sent to Longueil from the Pope to write against Luther; he did this in the form of five discourses. Bembo and Navagero were full of praises of the work, declaring that Longueil alone had made his way into the Lutheran citadel, by popularizing the theology of the schools. The adverse judgment of Erasmus is more appropriate. In spite of his admiration of the skill with which the learned Frenchman clothed theological ideas in Ciceronian garb, he declared that the freedom of his movements was hampered by the strangeness of the clothing.

Longueil enjoyed his triumph for a short time only, for, worn out by the strain of work, he died in September, 1522. In a second edition of his Apology, which became in his hands a model of Ciceronian style, he had set himself against the festival of Pasquino, on which occasion, he said, virtuous people were attacked by anonymous poems. The passage is of importance because it prevented the composition of any satirical pasquinade for a whole year. This change was being slowly introduced during the time of Leo X, with the consequence that Pasquino became . the recognized channel of the ridicule and wit of the Roman satirists. In essentials, however, the statue preserved its original academic character. It was decorated and dressed up only on the Feast of St. Mark (the 25th of April), when the literati, especially those attending the Roman University, fastened their epigrams to the pedestal. It is interesting to see how the current events of the day and antiquity disputed in their influence on the adornment of Pasquino. In 1512, under Julius II, the statue had been dressed as Mars; in 1513, under Leo X, it appeared as the Belvedere Apollo; in 1514, as Mercury; in 1515, as Orpheus ; in 1516, as Proteus; in 1517, the year marked by the intercessory pilgrimages during the Turkish panic, it appeared in the garb of a pilgrim. A professor of the University was always the organizer of the festival, and a Cardinal its patron; and it was a novelty when the Pope—especially significant in the case of Leo X—busied himself directly about the festival and spent money on it. Among the poems there were, it is true, some which indulged in vagaries and political attacks on the Curia and even on Leo X; but these last were never directed against the spiritual authority of the Pope as such. On the contrary, Pasquino often attacked the extravagant doctrines of Luther.

That the lampoons should increase under Leo X was but one of the consequences of the culture of the time. Rome had always been famous for its satires, both learned and popular; but never since the time of the Emperors had this kind of literature flourished so luxuriantly as now. In the multitude of Latin and Italian satires, scandal held a perfect orgy. The inconceivable liberty which always prevailed is shown by the fact that repeatedly, and especially in 1513, 1515, 1516, and 1518, satires were spread about, couched in bitter language, and directed; not only against Cardinals, members of the Curia, and especially against the hated Florentines, but against Leo X himself. Some of these were affixed to Pasquino, but the place where they had been printed was not stated, and the author concealed himself under the veil of anonymity. In 1519 the festival of Pasquino was forbidden, to the great grief of the Roman literati ; a poem affixed to Pasquino in 1520 deplores the unfortunate position of these men. On the other hand, another pasquinade affords indirect proof that the poets had cause to be satisfied with the liberality of the Pope.

If classical antiquity exercised this strong influence on satire and rhetoric, no less did it influence the writing of history, even when written in Italian. Indeed, the Italian historians are more penetrated by the spirit of antiquity than the most ardent Latinist, enamoured of Livy. The greater ones were personally known to Leo X though he did not live to see the completion of their histories.

Francesco Guicciardini, who must be mentioned first, wrote his immortal History of Italy long after the days of Leo X; but had, under the influence of the important events which were going on, mapped out the plan of his work during the lifetime of the Medici Pope. From being an adversary of the Medici, he became their warm adherent when he was sent to Cortona to meet the Pope on his way to Bologna. Leo soon recognized the great talent of the highly-gifted man, and appointed Guicciardini consistorial advocate, and in 1516 made him Governor of Modena and Reggio. It was his political advice that Leo should put on one side all other dangerous enterprises, for the sake of establishing a firm dominion in Florence, even under the outward semblance of republicanism.

Machiavelli’s ideas were quite different. This genial writer, as indifferent morally as Guicciardini, ranks with his compatriot by his most important works, Discourses on the Roman History of Livy, and The Art of War, which date from the time of Leo X. Machiavelli had been involved in the conspiracy of the Boscoli, and owed his preservation to the clemency of Leo X ; he now lived in the country near Florence, occupied with literature. At the end of 1513 he finished his famous book II Principe, which he dedicated to Lorenzo de’ Medici, in the hopes of obtaining employment from him; the plan fell through owing to the opposition of Cardinal Medici ; and in February, 1515, the latter expressly warned Giuliano against taking Machiavelli into his service. However, the historian succeeded later in entering on closer relations with the Medici. In 1519 he received a request from Cardinal Giulio to give him his opinion in writing as to the best ways and means of improving the government of Florence. This opinion was to be submitted to the Pope, who, at that time, after the death of Lorenzo, was planning a re-arrangement of Florentine affairs. Machiavelli excused himself from complying with the request, because he advocated the restoration of the Republic, though in such a manner that Leo X and Cardinal Medici would remain the real lords for as long as they lived. When this singular opinion was set aside in Rome better days began to dawn for Machiavelli, in so far that at last he received some commissions from the Cardinal; but they were so insignificant that they humiliated him more than they benefited him. A real proof of favour on the part of the Medici was shown him for the first time in November, 1520, when, for the consideration of an income of 100 gulden, he was charged with the writing of a history of Florence. This arrangement was in great part due to the far-seeing Cardinal Giulio, who, as Archbishop of Florence, was at the head of the University, and in virtue of a Bull of Leo X of the 31st of January, 1515, had the power of conferring academic degrees and dignities. This historical work of Machiavelli was never seen by Leo ; but, on the other hand, he read a part at least of that written by Paolo Giovio.

Paolo Giovio, the third of the great national historians, who described the age of Leo X , was born at Como in 1483, had been the pupil of Pomponazzi in Padua, and had at Pavia gained a doctor's degree in medicine. The fame of the liberality of the Medici Pope lured him to Rome. There he went on with his practice of medicine,§ though he was really far more interested in the study of contemporary history. Few places in the world are so well suited for this study as is the Eternal City. The items of news which were always streaming in from all parts were discussed by Giovio with a friend who took the same unbounded interest as himself in news of this kind. This was Marino Sanuto, the author of the great collection of diaries which form such an inexhaustible fund for the making of contemporary history. Giovio planned a great historical work which was to comprise all countries. His project was to narrate in Latin all the occurrences of the world which had taken place since the expedition of Charles VIII. into Italy. A more suitable beginning could not have been chosen than this event, which led to a complete dislocation in the condition of the States of Europe. A portion of this work was finished as early as 1514 ; and Giovio had the honour of reading it to Leo X, who was immensely pleased. Since Livy, he is reported to have said, no one has written so elegantly and fluently. Knighthood and a professorship at the Roman University f were the immediate rewards of the fortunate author, who accompanied the Pope to Bologna in 1515. Thence he wrote to Sanuto that he could think of nothing but the completion and publication of his work. It was not, however, till 1550, two years before his death, that Giovio's book began to appear in print. Copies in manuscript had already been circulated ; but Giovio worked on indefatigably at improving the work, and turned in all directions for fresh material.

Giovio’s work shared the fate of all important histories, and was subjected to very divers judgments; belauded by some to the heavens, by many others it was equally depreciated. These attacks Giovio has made public in his too frank confessions both by word and letter. As a true humanist he was profoundly convinced that he was the dispenser of fame, and wished to make his work as useful as possible. With cynical vaunting he declared that he had written according as he had been paid, and had therefore clothed some in gold brocade and others in sackcloth. The same man who expressed opinions so reprehensible in a historian, spoke bitter home-truths to his greatest patron, although he was being constantly and richly remunerated by him. His work became the model and chief source drawn on by all political writers of that time in Italy, though the book was censured by many, simply from envy.

Giovio’s history throws valuable light on the moral aspect of his own life. Some confidential letters in the years 1522 and 1523 prove that at that time Giovio led the same life of enjoyment as was led by so many of his con temporaries. But besides the pleasures of a lower sort which the Rome of Leo X afforded, there were others which were more noble. Among these, the one to which Giovio devoted himself was that of collecting works of art, especially portraits, which were the beginning of his museum, at a later date so famous. He delighted, moreover, in social intercourse with all the intellectual and learned men who lived in the Eternal City. The memory of the joyous time which Giovio then spent in Rome, lights up, like a gleam of sunshine, the picture drawn by him of his exalted patron and his own aesthetic enjoyment of life. However much this history, in which the darker side of the Medici Pope is almost entirely overlooked, may be open to criticism, it makes us understand how for a whole century it influenced the reading world of the West. In no other work is there put before us in such vivid colours that joyous and brilliant spirit of the time of Leo X, in which the enjoyment of antiquity interwove itself with and stamped all other enjoyments, and gave such a special mark to life in Rome.

 

CHAPTER XIV.

STUDY OF ANTIQUITY. —RAPHAEL AND THE PLAN OF ANCIENT ROME. — ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE STUDY OF GREEK. —THE VATICAN LIBRARY AND THE ROMAN UNIVERSITY.